Hacker News Reader

Comment by jonnathanson | Hacker News Reader

Can we actually prove fraud in any of these cases, though? I'm not saying it can't happen, or that it hasn't happened. But we should never attribute to malice what can be more readily attributed to stupidity. I'm more inclined to believe that a bunch of people got in over their heads than that a bunch of people intentionally scammed backers.

I may be wrong. But can someone point to some concrete examples? Fraud is a pretty heavy charge to level against Kickstarter projects, and it's also an indirect accusation that Kickstarter is a hotbed of such activity.

View on HN

Wanting to prevent campaigns that will end in failure due to "stupidity", or even people who "got in over their heads" is just as valid as wanting to prevent fraud. Kickstarter's image/brand will be hurt by poorly executed campaigns that fail for whatever reason, so it's in their best interest to keep those to a minimum.

I've thought for a while now that Kickstarter should have upper bounds for funding to prevent people from unwittingly accepting too much money and forcing the scale and scope of their project to change. Once a project is 200% funded, stop allowing more backers.

I had a similar thought, that rewards should only be granted while you're under the funding target. If you want to pile on later to make sure the project has the best chance it can? Fine, but no reward - that goes to the people who actually made it possible at all.

You can limit the number of slots per reward, which is essentially the same.

Yes, but that doesn't stop people from adding more slots than they can realistically handle.

The skills, knowledge, and resources to produce 1k widgets is totally different than producing 1MM widgets. I might be able to brute-force manufacture 1k widgets from my garage and that would kickstart the business if that's my skill and scale estimate. I need staff, facilities and a different type of supplier if I need to make millions, and I may not have what it takes to deliver on that.

I don't disagree, but the cause of an unshipped product matters. If people believe Kickstarter campaigners are naive, that's one thing; they'll proceed with a bit more caution. If people believe that Kickstarter campaigners are intentionally trying to screw them over and run off with their money, that's another thing entirely. The former erodes trust in individual Kickstarter camaigners; the latter erodes fundamental trust in the site itself.

True, Kickstarter should be trying to address the issue, regardless of its cause. But let's be careful before leaping to the conclusion that people have been acting in bad faith.

People suggesting something unethical need be illegal are part of the issue. In the USA there is a tradition of aggressive play within the rules. If we want to bend the rules [1] a bit -- and make no mistake, that is kickstarter and crowd-sourcing -- there needs to be some ethical nous in place. Both by the companies and the supporters.

[1] The reason US required QUIbs and the SEC and the related regulatory structure (re: financial investment contracts) is precisely to create such bright line playing fields. But these lines are sufficiently complex to require a "price of admission".

> But we should never attribute to malice what can be more readily attributed to stupidity.

I don't know. On the other hand, if you leave a loophole in a system, it will be exploited; that's a basic human law. So in this case I'd guess both scenarios occur - there are so many assholepreneurs out there trying to find a way to "creatively" earn money that I wouldn't be surprised if those design scams were occuring more and more often.

Fraud is too strong of a word. However, unrealistic renders are at least dishonest, and even if not maliciously so, the effects are much the same.

Misleading rather than dishonest, dishonest implies intent, even if not malicious intent.

Yeah, this seems to be something of a gray area. Not quite fraud, but heading very pointedly in that direction. Perhaps someone more familiar with relevant law knows of a term? Or maybe we should start thinking about inventing one.

> Can we actually prove fraud in any of these cases, though?

Is this the standard we want?

If you used an investment service which said "we require proof beyond all reasonable doubt of criminal endeavors before taking down [some UGC]," how much would you trust those investments? What if the standard for takedowns was a bit higher?

> Is this the standard we want?

I'd say so, yes. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_until_proven_guilty

> I'd say so, yes.

Proof beyond all reasonable doubt is a lovely standard for a criminal justice system. Note that it is not used in civil suits in America - only criminal cases.

We're not talking about taking away people's freedom here. We're talking about an investment website.

Some level of proof is still necessary, though. Not just an accusation.

In general with Kickstarter failures current and future, I think we'll find the evidence weighs heavily in favor of incompetence rather than malice. There's no shortage in the world of business ventures that are honest to goodness failures.

> Some level of proof is still necessary, though. Not just an accusation.

Is anyone arguing that mere accusations should result in kickstarter takedowns? You make a good point... just a sort of obvious one.

This is clearly a hard problem, and neither extreme of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" or "accusation = takedown" works. Maybe that's why this space is so unexplored! That doesn't absolve Kickstarter from having to discover the palatable middle ground.

Hard work is hard, and I think today's announcements are part of that hard work. So I say: keep it up, Kickstarter!

> Is anyone arguing that mere accusations should result in kickstarter takedowns?

Yes, it should - if it's backed by a legal letter, Kickstarter might be liable too, if the suit is sucessful.

You seem to have misunderstood "mere accusations."

Takedowns due to "mere accusations" to me means that I can fire off an e-mail if I see a kickstarter project that looks sketchy and have it taken down post-haste.

To me, that is highly suboptimal.

Well if it's based on this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4549792 then Kickstarter should take it down. It's a civil matter, so there's no "beyond reasonable doubt" required, and if Kickstarter are helping fund infringement, then they're on the hook too.

Is there actually a legal basis for this? As in, if Stripe was, in good faith, processing payments for a company which is selling (allegedly) infringing products, they're obligated to stop processing payments immediately? It seems like there'd be a clause in the TOS to indemnify them.

They didn't just take it down - they left no way for anyone to find out what had happened to the project by looking at the Kickstarter site. There's just a page saying the project doesn't exist anymore for some unspecified reason.

The question is not, did X commit fraud. The question is, "can fraudsters abuse the system maliciously?", and "can incompetents unintentionally abuse it?".

Since the answer is clearly "yes" - then taking some steps to reduce the impact of these vulnerabilities seem reasonable. If you are selling a product, show us the product. If you do not have a product, we want to be sure the backers know this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com